Wirkungsgeschichtehttp://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com
A Translation WorkshopFri, 20 Sep 2013 00:26:58 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.3.14Theology and Arthttp://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=1148
http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=1148#commentsFri, 15 Mar 2013 18:08:05 +0000http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=1148Art is a measure of the impact of the Bible in a given people and culture. Here are an assortment of works from a variety of cultures that have touched my own heart:

a-pre-cognitive value systems into which readers seduced or enticed, only to find world and reader’s expectations subverted or reversed.

1) Fuchs on reveral of expectation in Mt. 20:1-16

2) “worldhood” in Heidegger’s Being and Time to which Fuch’s was indebted.

c) Problems in Philosophy of Language

1. Wittgenstein and J.L. Austin: peformatives which presupposed institutional states of affairs and specific contextual conventions improvement on Heidegger and Fuchs.

2. Pannenberg on Hermeneutics also alerted him to devaluing of assertions in Heidegger and Gadamer.

3. Concerned to draw equally on Anglo-American tradition and Continental Philosophy with Wittgenstein as a key figure with incisiveness and rigor (analytical phil in Britain) and Continental suspicion of exclusively rationalist methods and deeper concern with human subjectivity in life-worlds. In Wittgenstein is forms of life and language-games. (p. 5)

d) continued developing a course on hermeneutics and theorists which need to be included.

III. The Two Horizons (Sheffield, 1980)

a) The Two Horizons: How do the two horizons of the ancient text and of modern readers actively engage with each other creatively without merely bland, passive, domesticating assimilation?

1-Heidegger’s “pre-cognitive worlds” developed by Ricoeur as narrative worlds of possibility.

2-Gadamer:

a-fundamental stance of respect for the otherness of the horizon of the other. The need to listen and question rather than to seek to master the other on one’s own terms (imperialism associated with the “general method” of science (with later Wittgenstein as well)).

b-unlike postmodern perspectives, “…Gadamer acknowledges a degree of stability in the role of communal judgments, and in the corporate transmission of traditions. Even if a ‘classic’ yields a plurality of actualizations, it belongs to cumulative traditions of acknowledged wisdom (phronesis). p. 8 Thiselton on Hermeneutics.

1. “These aspects laid the groundwork, first, for respect for the horizon of the other as other, and then for a disciplined movement and progress towards a fusion between the two horizons (Horizontverschmelzung) of past (or text), and present (or readers). This could be achieved not by a universal scientific method at the level of rational reflection alone, but by hermeneutically trained judgement.” p. 8

2. dialectic between tradition at level of ontology and variable, finite, contextually conditioned contingencies of plural actualizations of the past in the present. Gadamer develops this in modified form from Hegel.

3-Fourth part of Two Horizons: similarities between “hermeneutically trained judgment” in Gadamer and patterns of regularity in the public domain of inter-subjective life in the later Wittgenstein.

a-Witt yields public criteria of meaning

1. regularities of language-uses may count as performing this or that intelligible action or function, within given traditions or forms of life.

2. Witt an account of particularities of context-variable meanings that simultaniously presupposed stable anchorages within this intersubjective public world.

b-specific cases where explication of conceptual grammar in NT would influence and clarify interpretations of the text. “Faith”, “flesh”, and “truth” as polymorphous concepts , as issues of stance or action rather than mental states.”

a) An attempt to write a systematic volume setting out Thiselton’s herneneutic theory and practice; overall theme of transformation. “How does biblical material interact with readers in such a way as to effect a transformation of stance, without itself undergoing change and distortion in the process?”

1- assess the role of 10 different models of hermeneutics

2-convinced that “the hermeneutics of self-involvement” including speech-act theory sheds a floodlight on the subject.

a. John Searle’s phil of language to explain transformation of bibical texts as promise. Follows Austin. “the logic of illocutionary speech-acts, including acts of promise, direction and commission, presuppose states of affairs rather than either eliminating or describing them. I argued that this insight is essential for a hermeneutic of the Christology of the Synoptic Gospels. The status of Jesus as Christ is presupposed but not declared in such effective illocutionary acts as forgiving, liberating, promising, commissioning and commanding.” p. 12

3- Show uses of ten models in different aspects of Bibical writings in relation to different aspects of human life today.

VI. On Speech-Acts, and Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self. (1992-1996)

a. Majoring on role of speech-act theory for hermeneutics. Read more widely and deeply in Speech-act theory. “Authority and Hermeneutics”, in PE Satterthwaite and DF Wright (eds), A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, Eerdmans, 1994)

VII. Some Possible Prospects and Agendas after 1996

a. 2 major paradigm shifts have occured in history of Biblical interpretation, each one breaking spell of previous controlling model.

1-Quest for freedom from dominance of ecclesial and dogmatic concerns associated with J.S. Semler and background of enlightenment rationalism.

2-This freedom hardened into a second paradigm; the historical method becomes institutionalized into a universal paradigm. (threw off dogmatic theology to sell itself into bondage to history.)

3-A new, reactive quest for freedom in which recognized that “Interpreter’s choose their aim.” Rapport with text’s author and factors which led up to first communication gives way to “success” as defending a specific area of modern or postmodern ideology, or in textual effects like reader-response theory or pietism, or undefined “edification” (social pragmatism of Richard Rorty?) Threat of hermeneutical anarchy; manipulation that hermeneutical inquiry first sought to avoid. (threw off history to sell itself to “literature” or to “politics”…the politics of gender, race, and class.)

a) The dilemma of postmodernism is that no single value-system can be priveleged without ceasing to be “postmodern”, including any dogmatic version of postmodernism. p 14

Wirkungsgeschichte flows of of philosophical hermeneutics through Gadamer.

Rezeptionsgeschichte flows out of Husserl-Roman Ingarden= Wolfgang Iser and reader-response theory which is then developed by H.R. Jauss into rezeptionsgeschichte.

“Jauss, no less than Gadamer, perceives texts of literature as “existing” in the process of their collective interpretations of successive generations of readers, and in the textual effects or actualizations, of hitherto potential meaning by these successive generations. Each generation (or more striclly, each “audience”) interacts with the text in terms of a different “horizon of expectations” (Erwartungs-horizont). Like Gadamer, Jauss regards the text as “potential” until it is “performed”, like a script or score that finds its “reality” in the play or concert that perofmrs it interactively with an audience as an event.” Thiselton, Thiselton on Hermenutics, p. 293.

Palmer’s point in writing: “…an introductory treatment of hermeneutics in a nontheological context which will be directed at clarifying the scope of the term.” p. 4

His book helps with the mapping out of

Three main origins of hermeneutics in the West:

1) Greek background

2) Hebrew/Biblical Approach

a) Here I add Brevard Child’s “Canonical Approach”

3) Western church development of issues “flowering” in hermeneutics as a philosophical, literary and theological issue.

4) The non-Western work on hermeneutics, even if not so-called, has yet to be identified and added to the discussion.

a) perhaps this work could be started with African ownership and actualization of the Western gospel it rec’d.

I. Greek background

a. seeks root meaning of “hermeneutics” by going back to its Greek linguistic roots: Ηερμενευειν and Ηερμενεια.

“An exploration of the origin of these two words and the three basic directions of meaning they carried in ancient usage sheds surprising light on the nature of interpretation in theology…and will serve in the present context as a valuable prelude to understanding modern hermeneutics.” p. 12

Robertson then cites Aristotles’ work Peri Hermeneias or On Interpretation.

(Thiselton says: “On Interpretation remains less useful for hermeneutics, since his main concern is abou the logic and rhetoric of propositions. In biblical studies the significance of Aristotle’s work regained recognition only with the advent of narrative theory and reader-response criticism in biblical hermeneutics around the later 1970s.” Thiselton on Hermeneutics, p. 18)

Robertson then limits his approach by focusing on the association of hermeneutics in its Greek form to the god Hermes and upon the three basic directions for the meaning of those terms.

He seems dependent, in connecting Hermes and hermeneutics, upon Heidegger rather than any original sources.

He also seems dependent upon Ebeling’s “Hermeneutik” for the direction of meaning.

I would like to work from the original sources rather than assume correct associations by those who have gone before. My hope is that I might find a new way (which may really be a pre-modern way) of discussing hermeneutics and possibly find much that was lost in the interpretation of those works.

Therefore, I need to become familiar with:

1) Aristotle’s work and early interpretation.

2) Heidegger’s sources for connectin Hermes and Hermeneutics.

Unterwegs zur Sprache (Harper translation from Fuller)

On the Way to Language P106.H3613 1971

3) The sources of Ebeling’s 3-fold direction of meaning.

Hermeneutik in RGG (doesn’t seem to be available in translation)

This review is from Ebeling’s book Word and Faith. Word of God and Hermeneutics is chapter XI.

.

I. Ebeling begins the chapter with a review of the history of hermeneutics. His retelling is narrowed in relation to the rise of the problem of the Word of God in relation to hermeneutics.

.

1) Before the reformation, Roman Catholic tradition had an answer to the hermeneutic question though it was not yet asked in its contemporary (to Ebeling) form. The revelation testified in Scripture, they believed, cannot be correctly understood without the tradition of the church. (305)

.

2) The reformers’ response, “sola scriptura” was also a hermeneutical theory. It held that the tradition of the church was not required to understand the scripture. Scripture has an illuminating power which shines, even on church tradition. (307)

.

3) But the lack of clarity of this position led to problems and errors.

a) Luther himself recognized the distinction needed between meaning (res) and word (verba). This led to problems between the Word of God and Scripture. Later reformers attempted to safeguard their position. This led to the Orthodox identification of scripture with the Word of God.

b) The result was that exegesis found itself, once again, under the domination of a dogmatic tradition which was decisive in the case of doubt.

.

4) The theology of the modern age used hermeneutics to undo these safeguards. They brought out the tension between exegesis and dogmatics, between scripture and the Word of God. Eventually the concept of Word of God itself was called into question. (308)

.

5) The theology of the Word of God attempted to regain the reformation theme of the Word of God but seemed in danger of overlooking the hermeneutical problem.

“The historical critical method of research into the Bible is right enough: it aims at a preparation for understanding, and that is never superfluous. But if I had to choose between it and the old doctrine of inspiration, I would definitely take the latter: it has the greater, profounder, more importantright, because its aim is the work of understanding itself, without with all prepration is worthless. I am glad not to have to choose between the two. But my whole attention has been directed to seeing through the historical to the Spirit of the Bible, who is the eternal Spirit.” (Romans, 1918, p. xii)

.

“I have been called a ‘declared enemy of historical criticism‘…But what I reproach them with is not historical criticism, the right and necessity of which on the contrary I once more explicitly recognize, but the way they stop at an explanation of the text which I cannot call any explanation, but only the first primitive step towards one, namely, establishing ‘what is said’…” (Romans, 1921, p. x.)

1-Barth’s passion for the Word of God tends to disparage hermeneutics while Bultmann’s interest in the hermeneutic problem appears to jeopardize what is said of the Word of God.

2-Barth begins with the hermeneutics of the Bible which he argues is valid generally, while Bultmann starts with a general hermeneutic which he then applies to the Bible.

a-“Where does the theory of hermeneutic principles just sketched come from?…It was with the only possible exposition of holy scripture in mind that we laid down the principles of exposition just given. Certainly not in the belief that they are valid only for the exposition of the Bible, but fully believing that because they are valid for the exposition of the Bible they are valid for man’s word in general, that they have a claim to general recognition…valid hermeneutics must be learned by means of the Bible as the testimony to revelation.” (Barth, Church Dogmatics I/2, pp.465 f) (310-311)

b- “The interpretation of the biblical scriptures is not subject to any different condition of understanding from any other literature.” (Bultmann, Glaube und Verstehen II, p. 231)

3-Barth takes an objective approach to the problem, while Bultmann sees the understanding itself as belonging to the matter. Thus for Bultmann much time is spent on preliminary understanding.

.

7) According to Ebeling, the debate is now bogged down, without even getting to the final alternatives. One could move forward by a detailed analysis of Barth and Bultmann. But he opts to focus on the structure of the problem our subject involves.

II. The second section of Ebeling’s lecture focuses on the terms “Word of God” and “Hermeneutics”. The emphasis is on the former as proclamation, even as event, with the latter, as helping move from holy scripture to proclamation, being the initial discussion which is the focus of part III.

“Word of God”, according to Ebeling, is “something that happens”, the movement which leads from the text of the holy scripture to the proclamation. This is a decisive starting point for defining the phrase, regardless of ones position in terms of a precise theological definition.

The criticism of Orthodox doctrine of the Word of God is that it identifies scripture and the Word of God without distinction. But according to Ebeling, the decisive shortcoming of the Orthodox view is that “holy scripture is spoken as the Word of God without an eye to the proclamation…” (p. 312). Though Orthodoxy was aware of the Word of God as the living voice of God (viva Vox) but “…too little attention was paid to the tension that exists between the verbum Dei as spoken word and the character of writenness. (Palmer) He notes that this is a divergence from the Reformation.

“Luther…insisted that the Gospel is really oral preaching: ‘…in the new Testament sermons are to be spoken aloud in public and bring forth in terms of speech and hearing what was formerly hidden in the letter and in secret vision. (Palmer) “That, too, is why Christ did not write his teaching, as Moses did his, but delivered it orally, also commanded to deliver it orally and gave no command to write it…For that reason it is not at all the manner of the New Testament to write books of Christian doctrine, but there should everywhere, without books, be good, learned, spiritually-minded, diligent preachers to draw the living word from the ancient scriptures and constantly bring it to life before the people, as the apostles did. For before ever they wrote, they had preached and converted the people by word of mouth, which also was their real apostolic and New Testament work…That books had to be written, however, is at once a great failure and a weakness of spirit that was enforced by necessity and not by the manner of the New Testament.'” (Kirchenostille 1522, Weimarer Ausgabe (Complete Works of Luther), 10/I, I, pp. 625.12-628.8.)

Ebeling notes that the distinction between the spoken word and scripture not only depended upon the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, but, as a presupposition of that issue, the relation of Gospel and law.

The essence of the Word belongs to its oral character, ie., as an event in personal relationship, that the Word is thus no isolated bearer of meanings, but an event that effects something and aims at something. (p 313)

.

]]>http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?feed=rss2&p=10910The Earth is The Lord’shttp://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=8
http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=8#commentsTue, 23 Oct 2012 17:21:36 +0000http://embodyephesus.wordpress.com/?p=46The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it…so David asserts in Psalm 24. He then supports this assertion with God’s action as creator of the world. The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it; for he founded it on the seas and established it on the waters.

At first glance, this passage seems to be archaic, a warrant which renders itself invalid by associating God’s ownership of all things with an outmoded cosmology. But we must understand what is begin done here. The Psalmist is using the very words of Canaanite (?) cosmology to assert a monotheistic view of all things. The God the Israelites have come to know in Jesus Christ is the one God who is over all things considered to be gods by others. David’s warrant is also an assertion of their God upon the common worldview of the day.

Every follower of God must engage in this conversion of world view. We all come as human beings who have participated in a culture which is more or less influenced by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Some aspects of our life in this culture aligns easily with God. Other areas do not acknowledge this God. And becoming godly is a process of converting these attitudes and ways of life to the God we have experienced.

David was convinced of God’s supremacy by God’s actions in battle. “Lift up your gates; be lifted up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle.” Going back to the story of David and Goliath, David came to understand God as the key player in battle. Not strategy, not armor, not the strength of the soldier, but the presence of God.

From this experience, David has has now come to understand that this God is not just a “war God” but a God who created all things, the God who is over all things. God is the one who makes the world go ’round.

What makes your world go ’round?

In the Western world, of which we are a part, we have rejected theocracy, rule by God. It is tough to blame us. We have seen this “kingship” of God abused inside our borders. We have seen it move us to oppress others. And now we have had our aversion to theocracy reinforced by radical Islam and 9/11. It isn’t religious rule that makes the world go ’round!

Is it the economy, then? It has become apparent how much this is the belief of the West. And those of us who follow God in the West have a schizophrenic approach to the economy. We believe in God, yes, but in our debate about the economy we argue over whether the market should be free from constraints to do what it is going to do (trust the market) or whether to have governmental intervention in the market (in government we trust). Neither side considers God’s relationship to the market. When we say, “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it…” do we include the market as well? We focus instead on policy to give us some sort of confidence (and ward off our insecurity and fear) as we build our hopes and dreams on the consistency and generosity market forces.

Politics is the other clear option in our day. It is politics, especially who our President is, that makes the world go ’round. The way we approach election day makes it clear that many of us believe deeply in politics making the world go ’round. Whether or not the political structure is in God’s hands is a question that raises fears of theocracy.

All three of these approaches to what makes the world go ’round share a basic assumption. That assumption is that power is what moves things forward. The power of God, the power of money, the power of politics…Power moves things. Power is the Lord’s! That is something that is easier for us to proclaim.

But then we encounter Christ and the claims of Christianity.

Jesus was born into a poor family. They could not afford the standard sacrifices and had to use the sacrifice allowed for the poor “a pair of doves or two young pigeons”. Jesus lived in Nazereth…a place off the radar screen of power and prominence. And Jesus’ ministry ended in his death, according to the capital punishment method of the day, in a way that, according to the Bible, meant one was accursed by God. As Jesus was led to his execution, what was left of his followers were scattered.

And yet Christianity says this is event is the center of human history.

Christianity asserts that love trumps power.

For those of us who have come to faith in Jesus Christ we have experienced God at work in our lives through him. As David saw God work in the battles of Israel we have seen God work in our personal battles. Somehow, through even the smallest faith in Christ, a connection is made with God who hears our prayers and works in our hearts and our lives.

In David’s day the question of who experience a relationship with God took a distinctly moral turn. Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place? Those how have clean hands and a pure heart, who do not put their trust in an idol or swear by a false god. They will receive blessing from the Lord and vindication from God their Savior. Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek your face, God of Jacob.

In the coming of Christ there is a despair of humans becoming moral according to their own will. Centuries of sacrifice for sin, after sacrifice for sin, generation of struggle with doing what we don’t want to do and never getting beyond the grip of sin in the lives of the Israelites as given way to a new way to experience relationship with God.

“…we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb 10:10b)

“…by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” (Heb 10;14b)

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus…let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to th ehope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.” (Heb 10:19b, 22-23)

Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place? Those who have received the gift of God in Jesus Christ.

As the early Christians related to God through Jesus Christ they found their world view changing as well. Jesus, who is the center of human history, was understood to be at the beginning of all things as well. “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it on the seas and established it on the waters.” became words that speak of the Lord Jesus.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him…For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood. (Col. 1:15-16,19-20)

Application: So where are you in your conversion to Jesus as the one who owns all things?

Has your relationship with politics been converted to Christ? Has your relationship to economics been converted to Christ? Have you given up the pursuit of power and focused your life on laying down your life for others? Is your worldivew fully Christian?

Conclusion: A story that has a particular relevance for us in our present situation:

Luke 12:13-21

Jesus tells us the truth of where such an approach to life leads. Let us give up this way of life to Jesus and share in the joy of David.

Lift up your heads, you gates; life them up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in. Who is he, the King of glory? Jesus Christ, the Lord Almighty-he is the King of glory.

]]>http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?feed=rss2&p=80The Parables of Jesushttp://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=448
http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=448#commentsTue, 23 Oct 2012 17:21:14 +0000http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=448“This queer situation can be cleared up somewhat by looking at an example; in fact a kind of parable illustrating the difficulty we are in, and also showing the way out of this sort of difficulty: We have been told by popular scientists that the floor on which we stand is not solid, as it appears to common sense, as it has been discovered that wood consists of particles filling up space so thinly that it can almost be called empty…Our perplexity was based on a misunderstanding; the picture of the thinly filled space had been wrongly applied. For this picture of the structure of matter was meant to explain the very phenomenon of solidity.” Wittgenstein, The Blue Book, p. 45.

1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:

2 for gaining wisdom and instruction;
for understanding words of insight;

3 for receiving instruction in prudent behavior,
doing what is right and just and fair;

4 for giving prudence to those who are simple, [a]
knowledge and discretion to the young—

5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance—

6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise. [b]

7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools [c] despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1

Let’s consider Jesus’ parables as a means of clearing up the difficulty we are in, of showing us the way out of our difficulty.

The difficulty in many of the parables is hiddenness…it is the contrast between what is seen now and what will ultimately be.

Mt. 13 on seeds: Meaning of parable itself…majority of seeds do not bear fruit. We see this and fear ineffectiveness. But the one that does bears much fruit.

Mt. 13 on Jesus use of parables: parables are means of understanding to a few and to the many they are means of revealing their callousness and blindness…in their not understanding. Parables function like Jesus in John 3:17ff. Meaning is hidden to reveal who is who.

Mt. 13 on wheat and tares: again hiddenness in sowing of tares, hiddenness of the progress of the wheat because of the presence of the tares, hiddenness in way tares will be dealt with.

Smallest seed, yeast in dough. Hidden, hidden.

Treasure hidden in field. Pearl purchased by merchant (kept?)

net let down doesn’t seem to fit, but then bringing out new and old (revealing what was hidden)

In seeking to distance ourselves from the shortcomings of previous generations, we must continue to nurture our friendship with them. After all, without the thoughts, ideas and actions, of those who have gone before us, we would not exist.

.

In Karl Barth’s day, the “pneumatic exegetes” attempted to facilitate the faithful application of the Scriptures by inhabiting a space between scientific exegesis and the practical application of the Bible. In this space they sought to divine normative and eternal principles which would tie pneumatic exegesis to scientific exegesis and thus protect against the imposition of value judgements on texts which had been scarcely understood.

.

Ludwig Wittgenstein has said that philosophers have often sought out the generalized principle and, as a result, ignored the very thing that can offer them the answers they are looking for; the concrete and specific use. The same can be said of the pneumatic exegetes in Biblical interpretation.

.

The position of the pneumatic exegetes showed itself to be unstable. Inevitably they leaned into scientific exegesis or into a set of principles which were more about the creativity of the exegete than anything normative or eternal. The space they created between what the text meant and what the text means collapsed on one side or the other. (Nature abhors a vacuum.)

.

In reaction to this instability, many scholars turned to a redefinition of the term “scientific” in scientific exegesis. If this word could be redefined, it was thought, they could bridge the gap between scientific exegesis and practical theology while still protecting exegesis from shallow subjectivity.

.

But all of this searching for eternal principles and correct definition is nothing more than a reaction to a new context. Germany, in the time of Karl Barth, was rejecting the academic commitments connected to Neo-Kantian philosophy in the aftermath of World War I. These views were being rejected because of their inability to stop such a war. In some cases they actually fueled the war. There was a longing, then, to return to aspects of Romanticism which preceded this period in philosophy. The context was changing and the Bible interpretation of the previous context was now seen to be flawed. Correctives were needed.

.

The scholars who set out to redevelop Biblical interpretation, however, did not acknowledge the change of context. The previous generation was seen to be wrong and flawed in their thinking. The present generation, it was thought, had a clearer view of the truth and more wisdom for the task. In the hubris found in every generation, they sought to find the eternal principles that the previous generation did not have. They worked to develop the correct definitions to replace the improper ones of those who had gone before. The only real difference between this generation and the next was the change of context. But since this change of context was downplayed, the search for the eternally correct view continued.

.

I hope to escape this cycle. Rather than discounting the exegesis of Neo-Kantian Germany as wrong and searching for the correct method of interpretation and application, I see the Neo-Kantian as well as the Neo-Romantic view which followed World War I as creative uses of the text of the Bible in different contexts.

.

I seek to facilitate the faithful embodiment of the Scriptures by recounting the stories of creative engagements with the Bible in different communities at different times. The goal of such an approach is not to find eternal and normative principles. It is not to find the correct definition of a particular doctrine of the Scriptures. The goal is to provide these stories as tools by which each generation will work to find the faithful expression of the Scriptures in their context.

.

The previous applications of the Bible, then, are not stepping stones to the assertion of what is really true by people who are somehow wiser than those who have gone before. Instead, they are seen as prayerful expressions of the struggle to be faithful to the gospel in their day. Their expressions form a vast library of resources to be prayerfully used by the present generation in their faithful grappling with the gospel in their own time and place.

.

I am no longer looking for generalized meanings which provide correct definitions which we can apply as a means of control in any situation; past, present or future. Instead, I am looking to various uses of the Scriptures to help develop a faithful embodiment of the text in my own day.

.

Such an approach acknowledges that scientific exegesis and practical application belong together. Our continuing friendship with those who have gone before asserts the importance of “what has been said”. The development of our own witness in interaction with them affirms the importance of “what it means”. As a result, this approach beckons scholars to come down from their ivory tower and, like Christ, to “pitch their tent among us”; to apply their skills to help the church in her calling to speak the gospel to her community in word and deed.

.

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run the race marked out for us…” Hebrews 12:1

1) During the Protestant Reformation newly forming churches, established or persecuted, were concerned with clarifying what they believed and justifying the legitimacy of their historical experience. Resulted in a variety of confessions, including the Belgic, Continental Reformed, 1561/Heidelberg, Continental Reformed 1563/Westminster Confession, English Reformed, 1646.) Mission was defined in these confessional documents within a worldview of Christendom. Here the church was established by the state. The church was assumed to be responsible for the world. It’s direct involvement was defined by the magistrate’s obligation to carry out Christian duties on behalf of the church in the world.

2) Modern missions emerged largely from outside and to some extent from inside the established churches. (insert Andrew Walls approach here) A new organizational structure designed to function beyond the Christian duties of the magistrate was required. One such structure was the mission society. (R. Winter “The two structures of God’s redemptive mission” and Cody Watson, Mission Orders and the Presbyterian Church)

3) First immigrants to American colonies brought their existing ecclesiology and structures with them. (notes from Presbyterian history) Their diversity led to the division between church and state. This resulted in the denomination becoming the primary organizational structure of the church (first change in organizational life of church in over 1,400 years.) (Niebuhr on Denominations)The denomination quickly became the norm for the church in the United States and through missionary efforts was spread throughout the world. Aspects of free-church ecclesiology (Anabaptists etc) were incorporated into US church polities.

4) Numerous interdenominational mission societies developed in 19th century. (Again, Walls) Then, because of internal church politics, increasing number of denominations withdrew from these cooperative agreements in order to form their own internal denominational boards and agencies. Now two forms of mission societies formed: (1) independent of denominational churches (faith missions or parachurch orgs) and (2) structures within denominational structures.

5) The peak of foreign mission movement from West was at Edinburgh world mission conference in 1910, (Walls yet again) gathered to complete the challenge of the Student Volunteer Movement: “the evangelization of the world in our generation.” World War I dramatically disrupted the plans developed here. Following WWI two critical developments. (1) The “younger churches” developed in the colonial system and with them the question of the relationship between the older and younger churches. (2) Move in West to clearly define the relationship of church to mission through three organizations which grew out of Edinburgh: the International Missionary Council (IMC) formed in 1921, the Life and Work Movement formed in 1925 and the Faith and Order Movement, formed in 1927. Life and Work and Faith and Order came together to form the World Council of Churches. in 1948. In 1961 WCC merged with IMC which became the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME). Many evangelicals then withdrew from the IMC/CWME. The IMC was assigned to commission status within the WCC making it effectively a subset of the church.

6) By mid twentieth century the division between ecclesiology and missiology insufficient to resolve question of how church and mission related.

a- Ecclesiology is a theological discipline which seeks to understand and define the church. This has come primarily from historical creeds and confessions formulated in the past twenty centuries. Few have an explicit awareness of the church’s responsibility for engaging in ministry in the larger world, apart from responsibilities assigned to the magistrate. On mission field two options: (1) denominations transposing their ecclesiastical systems including confessional understanding of church as well as most of their Western-shaped practices including things like programs, music, organization and architecture. This was challenged by many younger churches [I was taught the impotence of such an approach in places like Honduras]. WCC formed in 1948 because of this and focused on unity in midst of such diversity. (2) Misson societies and parachurch orgs which had no confessional understanding of the church became pragmatic in their development of churches in various contexts. “Restoration tradition”, using NT to find patterns of church life to emulate, but diversity of practices in the NT plagued efforts to find common ground in this way. But this still forms the primary approach to church planting and mission for many evangelicals.

b-Missiology is a theological discipline which seeks to understand and define the creating and redeeming works of God in the world. These have traditionally come from organizational entities – monastic orders, mission societies, parachurch organizations, denominational boards and agencies – which developed alongside the church. Few developed any meaningful interaction with the creeds and confessions of the church. Schleiermacher, in his 1811 proposal for a theological curriculum, designated mission as a practical discipline dealing primarily with mission practice. Fulfilling great commission major emphasis of movements working outside of or alongside denominations. Church primarily responsible for activity of mission. Just as discipline of missiology gaining viability in the academy, the climate related to foreign mission shifted. By 1950’s validity of foreign mission called into question. Missiology became marginalized as it was becoming institutionalized. Alternative mission theologies developed primarily by Orthodox and Roman Catholic, but two strains of evangelicalism as well: (1) McGavran and church growth through school or World Mission at Fuller and (2) Focus on world evangelization through Billy Graham Association which morphed into the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE). All are still very much at work in the world today. Each movement continues to show high levels of suspicion toward the others. Introduction of the Missional conversation has done some to form a bridge between the two.

]]>http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?feed=rss2&p=9490Book Review: The Missional Church in Perspectivehttp://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=939
http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=939#commentsFri, 01 Jun 2012 23:09:36 +0000http://www.wirkungsgeschichte.com/?p=939Bottom line: Read the first chapter and scan the rest of the book.

“The Missional Church in Perspective: Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation” by Craig Van Gelder and Dwight J. Zscheile, is important for its rehearsal of the historical development of the missional movement. Equally important are the key theological concepts of the movement drawn out of this historical retelling. The book also offers a helpful way to begin to untangle the variety of uses of “missional” in present literature. It is, however, much less successful in its attempts to shape the conversation.

The authors begin by acknowledging the present confusion in the missional conversation. They make a point of contrasting their interpretation of the situation with others who have expressed their frustration. They tell us that they, instead, see the lack of clarity as a display of the “inherent elasticity that allows it to be understood in a variety of ways.” (p. 3) They then set out, in part I, (written primarily by Van Gelder) to organize this movement through a historical summary, a critical evaluation of a seminal text in the field and a map of the various uses of the term today.

The history of the movement (p. 18-25) is very helpful. It “connects the dots” from the Reformation to the present. One interesting aspect of this retelling is the way in which divisions among participants are lamented as the loss of an important perspective in the missional dialogue. This leads to the hope, expressed in a number of ways in this first section, that the present missional discussion will continue to draw together a wide group of Christians under a new “missional” paradigm. (p. 34)

I found six of the key concepts drawn out of the history very helpful in my own deepening understanding of the missional movement. It also provided fodder for thought about possible next steps in the conversation. They are:

1) Church & missons/mission: connect the ecclesiological and the missional.

2) Trinitarian missiology: introduces us to a sending God who is a missionary God.

3) Missio Dei: from mission as church-centric to mission as theocentric.

4) Reign (kingdom) of God: the already & not yet central to the message of Jesus.

5) Church’s missionary nature: mission is not so much the work of the church as the church at work.

This section is probably the most immediately useful part of the book for those who want to help the discussion move ahead. If one is short on time, one could very profitably read this first chapter in depth and skim the rest of the book.

The second chapter is a critical analysis of the seminal work “The Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America”. This book continues to play a central role in the spread of the missional conversation. This chapter is at its best when it is connecting today’s confusion about the term to a lack of clarity in this original work. Van Gelder makes connections with at least four of the above “key concepts” in this chapter, thus building upon chapter 1. However, these connections are often haphazard and some of the key concepts are not discussed at all. For example, he makes the astute observation that Missional Church lacks significant reflection on worship and sacraments from a missional perspective and has no discussion of ordination at all. This same lack of thought is found in much of the missional literature. But this observation is not located clearly within the key concepts in chapter 1. And very little is done to help us move forward in clearing up these issues. (For example, Miroslav Volf, in his work on the Holy Spirit (mentioned in the second half of the book) dedicates sections of his work on worship, the Sacraments and ordination.)

Such tidiness might not be important except for the stated goal of this book: to deal with a “lack of precision and integration that is resulting from the use of the term ” missional. But the end of chapter two the difficulties of aligning the historical description with the critique of “Missional Church” leaves the reader in some confusion about tracing the missional discussion or taking steps to move the discussion forward.

The third chapter of the book, however, is very clear in its structure. The mapping of the “missional discussion” is very helpful in offering a handle on the plethora of books on the subject today. After establishing the main branches of thought, each section lists of representative texts for each, including blogs. These are followed by solid critiques by Van Gelder and Zscheile.

Part two (written primarily by Zscheile) exacerbates the organizational problems of the first part of the book. It provides basic summaries of some recent missional thinking. But its usefulness to an open dialogue is limited.

Perhaps this problem can also be traced back to the first section. Though the authors introduce the book with a gracious analysis of the current missiological malaise, the mapping of that discussion assumes that the confusion is due to an incomplete understanding of the key concepts of the missional movement by many who are writing about it. The second part of the book seeks to further this interpretation by promoting a particular viewpoint. This belies what was said in the introduction of the book. Rather than inviting further dialogue (p. 13), these chapters seek to educate people who, one assumes, do not yet understand the terms they are using. This does not promote discussion between those who are using the term in a variety of ways.

The central focus of chapter 4, though described in the Introduction as “recent Biblical and theological developments” is actually the review of a narrow selection of recent theological works on the social Trinity. Zscheile laments the fact that the theologians reviewed did not make connections between the Trinity and the missional conversation, leaving us to wonder if our only option is to wait until they make such a connection and write a book. He draws out the implications of this view of the Trinity for some of the other key concepts of the missional discussion. But other concepts drawn out by Van Gelder in the first half of the book are not dealt with at all. It would have been far more helpful for this chapter to have built upon Van Gelder’s work in the first section by extending the discussion of each of the key concepts in the second. If this half of the book had been organized in this way, they authors could have offered key texts for further study as well as a critical evaluation of each.

Chapter 5 reviews a limited selection of works in search of an appropriate definition of culture. This is a significant discussion for the missional conversation though it was surprising to have so much on it given its paucity of emphasis in the first half of the book. The discussion here lacks depth and leans heavily on a few anthropological texts with little discussion of the contributions of sociology or of Christian social theory to this important discussion. It is unclear how the material in this chapter connect with the concepts in the first chapter or how this chapter facilitates discussion among the wide range of people using the word “missional”.

It seems that the authors and editors may have been aware of the organizational problems of the book. Perhaps this is why an introductory page is placed before each of its two sections. They seem to have been added as a guide to the confused reader. But these pages end up rehearsing unnecessary and repetitive information which further harms the flow of the book and urges the reader to shift to a skimming approach to the material.

Chapter 6 is best read in this way. The discussion of missional practices in church life has the feel of a corporate/how to type of book which, thankfully, the rest of the book does not share. It is clear that the strength of the authors is in the tracing of ideas and the summarizing of theological works. The direct application of these ideas to the church is vague and unoriginal.

One is left with a whole variety of questions to pursue on one’s own with little direction from the text. For example, is the social Trinity the non-negotiable core of the missional movement? Are there other theological conceptions which would also motivate the same embodied activity from congregations who do not hold such a view? Also, how will we move forward in making a connection between the Trinity and the missional church? What is a “missional hermeneutic” and how do we develop this aspect of the discussion? And how do we develop a missional understanding of worship, the sacraments and ordination?

The Missional Church in Perspective is an important book in the ongoing missional conversation. Its primary value lies in its historical summary of the movement which draws out key theological concepts in that discussion. Those who desire to be part of that discussion would be best served by reading the first chapter in depth and then use that information as a template to scan through the book for other information on those concepts of interest.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Ephesians 2:14-16

If you do not ask the right questions, you do not get the right answers. Edward Hodnett (American poet 1841-1920)

“What is your church’s policy on gays and lesbians?”

I have been asked that question a number of times. The direct answer to this question is, “We don’t have policies on certain demographic groups in our community. We exist for people who are seeking a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. All are welcome to join our community and to be transformed by the love of Christ.”

But this answer does not satisfy. The problem is that the question being asked by our society is not a question that the church can answer. This is because the church is asking a different question.

Christians believe that Christ came to destroy the divisions society constructs between human beings (Galatians quote above). We believe that God’s purpose through Christ s to create one new humanity in Christ (Ephesians 2, above). This means that we don’t buy into the divisions of our culture. It means that we are challenged to understand ourselves and each other in a new way. We are a people whose sense of self is being redefined as our relationship with God through Christ becomes more and more central to our existence.

This is particularly challenging for us to embody given our society’s project. We can agree on one thing. There has been a division in our society between heterosexuals and homosexuals which harms many and has justified violence against the marginalized. Sadly, Christians have been a part of the problem. We need to repent and stand against this division. But many of those who have worked for gay rights have also sought to develop sexuality as an identity; as an immutable part of who we are as human beings. We are either homosexual or heterosexual or something inbetween. This does not solve the problem of division and injustice in our society. It simply moves the walls of division from one place to another. It merely shifts the power to dictate what is right and wrong from one group to another.

The church is called to be radical. To be truly radical is to change the question which is the root of the problem. We cannot choose one of the two pre-made answers that our society allows us. We cannot choose to be liberal or conservative and thus define ourselves over/against the other option. This simply layers division upon division. The past division which caused the injustices toward homosexuals are only shifting to a new power group. It is now the “tolerant” (meaning those who ascribe to particular “doctrines” and “dogmas) who are increasing in power while the “intolerant” (meaning those who used to have power to define right and wrong but who continue to give validity to views contrary to the “tolerant”) receive increasing ridicule. The scarlet “A” became the scarlet “H” has now become a scarlet “I”. As Christians we must stand against the very idea of division among human beings. We must ask a different question.

How do we create a new community without division? How do we create a community of service and love which heals those wounded by the divisions of our society? This is the right question. This is the question we should always keep before us. This is the question that will lead us to the right answer.

We exist to create a community of faith who welcomes anyone who truly seeks a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This community is committed to radically transforming their identity in such a way that we no longer support the ideological divisions of our culture, speaking instead to the transcendent reality of the new humanity formed in Christ. As such, the question we are asking is:

Early global Christianity has been covered over. Europe now becomes the center of the Christian world. It is now the most significant area of its practice. Christianity in Asia and Africa had been eclipsed altogether. Many Christians there were now under alien rule. As a result, Christianity became more European than it had even been before. In Ethiopia a very distinctive form of Christianity had emerged, marked deeply by conditions of African village life. There were also Christian communities in S. Asia at this time. But European Christians knew little of the world beyond the Muslim communities at the border of European Christendom. They only had rumors of “Prestor John”, a Christian prince beyond Muslim lines who might help them against the Muslims, if only they could find him.

.

Europe was also more Christian than had ever been before. Geographically, the last northern peoples in Finland and Scandanavia had become Christian. In the south Spain had been recaptured with the defeat of the Kingdom of Granada in 1042. Over next couple of decades, Spain’s Muslims will be required to convert to Christianity or leave. Only in the Balkans was there any break in Christendom in Europe. Europe was Christianity geographically expressed. It was Christianity on the map. Islam had also consolidated its position in the East. They lived across from Christendom, with no one else in site. There were no other non-Christian people’s of whom the Europeans knew. Very little was known of China and Africa at this time. There was no knowledge of America at all.

.

Europe was more Christian than ever before in the cultural sense as well. It had taken many centuries to become Christian. But now Europe produced a literature, art, and philosophy shot through with Christian symbols. European culture at this time is hardly intelligible without a knowledge of those Christian symbols. In places of learning, theology was the queen of the sciences. Theology is what unified the disciplines.

.

A development took place which would change history of Christianity again. We are not talking about the Reformation. The Reformation was only a local difficulty related to other 16th century development. The development of which we speak is ocean going vessels which brought Europe into contact with the non-Christian world, to live in close contact with non-Christian peoples. It would be a time in which she would have to face the limitations of her knowledge, to stretch their theology, to think of things they hadn’t thought of before.

.

Kingdom of Kongo

Portuguese sailors moved further and further down Africa to get past Muslim territories to the places where they knew there was gold (because it showed upin commercial channels). In 1483 the Portuguese reached the mouth of the Kongo.Over the next decade other visits were made and relations developed with people of this territory. Both parties were reasonably pleased with each other. They exchanged gifts and hostages with one another. There were Africans living in Lisbon. There were Europeans living in Congo. They agreed to trade. Over time, the Western party wanted more. The representatives of Christendom wanted to see that territory expanded, with the law of Christ being observed in places where it was not now being followed. Being convinced of the power and truth of Christian doctrine, they wanted the people of Congo to accept it as well. Reflecting the workings of their own hierarchical society, they concentrated on “the kings”, as they called them, of the countries to which they came.

.

In 1491 they secured the baptism of a major chief in the Kingdom of Kongo. After his baptism he took the name of John I. The King of Portugal was John II. Before long King John I became disillusioned with Christianity. When he made the decision to to become Christian, all the charms and protective magic of his people had been burnt. A huge wooden cross had been erected in the center of town. But the representatives of Christendom wanted other bonfires; whenever priests found fetishes, charms, or amulets, they would burned them. But these things were for protecting the kingdom and had done it reasonably well in past. How could the King be sure he and his kingdom would be protected without such things? Another problem was that they had forced him to put away all of his wives except one. But he needed the wives because each of them represented treaties with other peoples and thus protection. So, John gave up Christian faith and a majority of the chiefs did as well.

.

Afonso

In the part of Kongo which was known as Mbanza, Afonso, a son of the King, continued in his Christian faith. When John died, a succession battle occurred. Many senior chiefs backed the oldest son of John who had given up Christianity. Others backed Afonso. Afonso’s forces were much less in number than his rival. But in the brief battle, for no evident reason, the majority army turned and fled from the battle field just when victory seemed assured. Afonso became King. His victory was sealed by a vision which many in the opposing army who fled said they saw, of a white cross in the sky when Afonso had called on Santiago Matamoros (fighter against Moors).

.

Afonso was now king. He reigned in Kongo for 34 years (died 1543). His Christian faith didn’t waver in that time. He was not a Portuguese puppet. He often differed in policy with them. He stood against a Portuguese trade monopoly. The Kingdom of Kongo was not a colony in any sense. A colony did develop later, in Angola, but that situation was different. The Kingdom of Kongo was one of the states of Christendom. (as France or England). Afonso was not an oppressive ruler, a conqueror or an expansionist. But he did desire to develop his kingdom; to improve his nation. Afonso made rites and ceremonies in his kingdom Christian rites and ceremonies. But the issue of protection from evil continued to loom large.

.

He needed to demonstrate power of God in Christ. How could it be revealed? Where would it be found? Without this power there would be no possibility of stopping the return to fetish use. In all the theology Afonso had been taught the power of God was demonstrated in the Sacraments and above all in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is how Christ power was demonstrated in Portugal. This is how it is sought. But the mass depended on the presence of priests. There were very few priests in the Kongo. Afonso appealed to the Portuguese to send doctors, builders, teachers, but above all he asks for priests. He didn’t get priests.

.

So, he turned to question of building indigenous priesthood. He sent people to Portugal for training. Some died, some couldn’t handle Latin. Some couldn’t handle celibacy. Hardly any came back. One did, a son of Afonso. He was an effective priest, but he died young.

.

Finally, Afonso gave up relying on Lisbon for training and asked for the territory of Sao Tome to build a seminary. The Portuguese had other plans for Sao Tome. So, he tried to get beyond the Portuguese King and appeal directly to Pope. But all messages to the Pope had to go through him. He made sure Pope never heard the request.

.

In absence of indigenous priesthood, Afonso presided over a lay Christianity organized on African lines, through heads of tribal families. Wealthy leading laymen committed themselves to works of prayer and charity in Portugal. He adapted this model for his Kindom and this resulted in a steady penetration of Christian teaching during his rule. Teaching was carried out by bands of people consisting of teachers and groups of students who worked their way through villages and towns. These catechists asked questions and received answers….a sort of lay pastorate. Catchism begins “By the sign of the Holy Cross, our Lord Christ God saves us from our enemies.” The first thing they needed to know was that Christ would protect them. The question, “What is a Christian?” Was answered properly by saying, “One who follows the law of Christ.” Prayers were taught to the people, the Lord’s prayer above all, as well as the Ave Maria.

.

Over the next 100 years or so Christianity deepened and traveler’s to the Congo were impressed that even in rural areas everyone knew the prayers and the outline of Christian doctrine. When teachers were not in worship, whole communities attended prayers on Saturday, led by the leading people, which including reciting the rosary. Easter, Advent, Christmas, and Epiphany were important festivals. All Saints Eve and All Saints Day were also important.

.

All families assembled on halloween and prayed, they went to the graves of their ancestors (now mostly Christian). In the capital the king went to graves of past rulers (in the royal chapel) and candles were placed near the graves and the rosary was said. All through the night this goes on. The Rosary is said again at dawn. The next day, All Saints day, was the day for church offerings. Gifts for church in money or in kind, were given in the name of the ancestors. Another major festival day was St. James’ day. This was adapted (popular cult in Spain and Portugal) to the Congo, being celebrated as the birthday of the church because of the way in which Afonso became king.

.

Kongo never got a priesthood. Afonso was himself the greatest early resource for church inKongo. A Portuguese priest, who worked inKongo, wrote that Afonso “appears as angel sent by Lord to convert his people.” He made it clear that Afonso preaches better than the priests do. He knows the Bible, the saints, and our mother. He does nothing but study, even falling asleep at the books. He forgets dinner time. He is so delighted at reading of Scriptures, he forgets himself.

.

After Afonso’s death, the Christian kingdom of Kongo continued for many generations. No later king had his vision or capacity. Meanwhile the Portuguese expanded the colony of Angola, fueled by the developing Atlantic

slave trade and, in their mind, this was main focus of church activity. Eventually Kongo was sucked in and seen as a source of slaves. In 1665 the Kongolese and Portuguese armies battled. The Kongolese were defeated. They

lost many chiefs, much of their wealth and some of their towns. In the end one can argue that the Christian kingdom of Congo was destroyed by colonization.

.

After this defeat, the kingdom of Kongo fell into civil war. But in the midst of this, a charismatic individual appeared on the scene. This is a frequent occurrence in African history. In turning points in history charismatic leaders arise. This is also true of Christian expansion there as well.

.

Kimpa Vita

In 1704, after 6 generations of Christianity in the Congo, a woman named Kimpa Vita (or Beatrice) was lying in bed fevered and sick from illness. She had avision of a man standing in her room and dressed in the clothing of missionaries in the Kongo. He said, ” I am St. Anthony. (Anthony was an Egyptian, and thus African, saint from centuries earlier.) “I have come to your head to bring restoration to kingdom of Kongo.” he said. Then she felt as thought he had entered her head. She was immediately healed of her sickness. She entered on a career of preaching, directed to the salvation of the people as well as the kingdom. In her preaching she called on the King to return to take his place in the now shattered capital city. She called for national regeneration. She called for an end to the civil wars. She also rebuked the greed which produced these wars. From here her theology took a radical turn. She stood against fetish and called for their destruction. This had been called for since the early days of Christianity in Kongo. But she extended this message to the Christian crucifixes which, she said, were themselves being used as fetishes. She even called for the great wooden crosses in towns and other areas to be taken down. God, she said, was interested only in our intentions. Crucifixes don’t mean anything to him. She even said that saying prayers are nothing in themselves. God considers the intention of the person praying. But prayers without the proper intention are just more magical practice. She became the focus of a movement challenging both church and state. In the end church and state combined against her and she was burned as a heretic in 1706.

.

Beatrice was the first real example of a radical reformer in African Christianity. This reformation was a sign of Christianity deeply penetrating this African culture. You only have reformation in a culture in which Christianity is the norm. The reformers find that norm lacking and call people to a higher commitment. Her teaching reflects aKongolese appropriation of Christianity. The mode of calling is very African; through an incurable illness which is cured on obedience to vision. This is common in stories of non-Christians in their culture. But here it is a Christian calling which comes in this form. The result of her calling and obedience is a re-interpretation of Christianity using African institutions. As other reformers, she claimed to be loyal to Rome and the Church. She was genuinely puzzled and distressed when her message not accepted by church authorities. This is a story which has many analogues in years which follow in Africa.

.

Conclusion

Kongo Christianity lasted more than 3 centuries in adverse conditions with minimal outside support. While lasted it was one of the states of Christendom.

Russia became increasingly important to the Mediterranean world. The growth of Islamic power and the prevalence of sea raiding made Mediterranean unsafe for trade. Russia’s great river systems were providing an alternative channel for trade between east and west. The Prince of Kiev rose to be the most important ruler in region. Grand Prince Vladimir was the dominant figure from 979 until his death in 1015. He was of Viking descent. His grandmother Olga had become a Christian while on a visit to Constantinople.

.

Many in Russia were attracted to Christianity at this time. The number of Christian families in Russia was growing. At first Vladimir did not look with favor on this. (hand out) Most of Russia’s neighbors had aligned with one or another of world religion. But Russia was still holding to the old primal religions. Some countries were Muslim, some Jewish (whole tribes Jewish by conversion), some were Latin Christians, some Greek Christians. It was still the patristic era in Greek Christianity (they did not have a Middle Ages and you can’t have a reformation like Western Christianity without a Middle Ages) Instead the patristic period for the Greek church extends right down to 15th century). As the rising power while Constantinople and the Roman Empire were declining, the Russians looked to the liturgies and worship of the countries around them and the worship of patristic constantinople hugely impressed them. Russia chose to follow Constantinople.

.

Vladimir was also looking at the political implications of such a decision. His relations with Constantinople were strained. He was laying siege against them. So, in their negotiations Vladimir agreed to become a Christian in Constantinople but demands a seal by marriage to the Princess (sister) of Constantinian leader. Once this took place, the Russians destroyed all their cult objects and ridiculed them in the city streets. It was a very public repudiation of the old gods. He was then baptized in the church followed by all of the people who are baptized in the river. This included young children in the arms of parents. This spread across Russia. Churches were to be build in every place where there had once been a pagan shrine. They built wooden church immediately in these sights with a nicer one later because they did not want a waiting period between the old and the new faiths.

.

Russia had entered Christendom. This was a Christendom with a great deal in common with the Western one, even while warning its people about the “vicious tendencies” of the church in the West. The liturgy was in Slavonic at that time, as this was vernacular of many. Schools set up for the training of an indigenous priesthood. And the new church began with built-in suspicion of the Western church. This Christendom was parallel with Western one.

.

The Church in Russia was part of nation’s social cement which tied the people together. Thus, the church in Russia was essentially pastoral; focused on teaching, inspiring, comforting in sorrow, supporting in adversity. The responsibility of the leadership was to maintain worship. to keep God before their eyes, and to lead people to heaven. Mt 28:19ff, which we call The Great Commission, undergirds their responsibility to make disciples of the nation of Russia by baptizing its people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Only when the nation expands and incorporates non-Christians will any other dimension of Mt 28:19 come to mind. At that time, the national duty is to make its non-Christian people Christian. Making them Christian is part of making them Russians. Until they become Christian they aren’t really Russians.

.

Eastern and Western Christendom realized their own deficiencies in trying to be a people of God. In both forms of Christianity, the sense of sin and failure build. Anxious, burdened souls who desire to be true disciples of Christ seek refuge in the monastic life. In the Eastern monastic tradition, they sought not only to imitate Christ as in Western monasteries, but to identify with Christ by being taken up into divine reality. There was intense concentration on the relation between divine and human. Christ became what we are in order that we might become what he is. The goal of the Christian life is to become partakers of divine nature. The worship of the church is meant to bring you into a position so that the worshipper doesn’t know if they are in earth or in heaven. It is to take people up into what the angels are doing all the time. The divine service is a reflection of that heavenly adoration of God and the lamb.

.

Vladimir took Christianity seriously after his conversion. He fed the poor from his own table. And his two youngest sons showed their devotion, after death of Vladimir. When they heard that their elder brother was going to attack them in order to seal his succession to the throne, one of them, Boris, refused to allow his army to fight. He said he had the right to defend the country against outside attack, but that it was not right to kill over rivalry with own brother. As a result, both brothers were murdered, submitting to death rather than break law of God. Don’t know of any in the story of European royalty who behaved like this.

.

II. Muslims and Mongols

.

Over time, the Eastern Roman Empire lost the provinces which were least Greek (Coptic and Syriac provinces went to Arabs, for example). What was left was most Greek parts of the Empire. As a result, the Greek language and culture became more of a part of the Eastern Roman Empire. The church became more homogeneous.

.

Meanwhile, Arabs from North Africa went into Spain and France. They were only turned back in central France in 732. The prospect of a Muslim Europe was a very real possibility at this time. Even after retreat from Tour, most of Spain remained in Muslim hands. Gradually, Christian leaders took it back though Andalucia was held by Muslims until 1492. (Columbus saw surrender of Muslim king before leaving on his journey).

.

Muslim population remained in these areas once they were retaken by Christians. They existed side by side with Christians and with a large Jewish population.

.

The Greek Roman Empire continued to feel Muslim pressure. The Arabs gradually took over territories, getting nearer and nearer to Constantinople and the gateway to Europe.

.

The growth of Muslim-Christian relations must be seen in terms of the contest for land. At this point in history they were not about Crusades. They were not about Jihad. The war of expansion and the defense of your land occurred on both sides. Battles were fought over ownership of territories.

.

The Crusades began in 1066 following the preaching of Pope Urban VI. His stated purpose was two-fold. 1) To reclaim holy places of Bible 2) to make it safe for those who were on pilgrimage to those places. There was a huge response. The motives were quite mixed. Military adventurers and elites (as with Clovis and Edwin) are looking to carve out territory for themselves. There is an expectation of worldly reward. In time some succeeded in gaining territory.

.

But the gains are short term. The main casualty of the Crusades was really the Eastern empire. It was destroyed by the Crusades. The Christian kingdom of Nubia was also a casualty of the Crusades. Each gain by Westerners weakened Eastern empire and made resistance to Muslims weaker.

.

Initially, there was a desire to heal break between East and West. This was pursued in the hopes of strengthening the East. They said they would forget 1054, that they would be Christians together, that they would unite in common interest. But as they met with each other they found little fellowship. Western Christians found it difficult to recognize the Eastern faith as being theirs. When they took territory in the Crusades, they slaughtered Christians as well as Muslims. They could hardly ever resist lure of taking territory, even if belonged to the Christian empire.

.

One of most shameful episode of Christian history is in the 4th Crusade. This Crusade was diverted from attacking a Muslim army to attacking the city of Constantinople. Western fighters entered on Good Friday in 1204 and in 3 days of murder, destruction, rape and looting laid the city to waste and all its glories. In the Hagia Sophia, a prostitute sang bawdy songs from the chancel while soldier hacked the high alter to pieces. This was a blow from which Constantinople never recovered.

.

In the 12th century we find the unannounced arrival of new nation. The Mongols had been a dispersed and divided people. But they were brought together under a great genius…In Central Asia in 1206, close to the date of the sack of Constantinople, he was elected great Khan, or Emperor of the nation he had brought into being. He took the name of Ghengis Khan. Between 1211 and 1215 his armies took command of the Chinese Empire. He then moved with his huge mounted army westward and occupied all of Central Asia; including Afghanistan, Iran and the Caucuses. He, too, had religious inspiration. Khan had Shamanistic visions in which he was called by the Supreme God of the Eternal Blue Sky to establish universal peace. He was able to incorporate Shamanists, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians under this Supreme God. The Mongols made peace by making a desert. No city could resist them. They destroyed like locusts wherever they went. They broke military rules of the day. His massive army had two horses for every rider. The riders developed the ability to sleep in the saddle. No army had moved so quickly.

.

There are many accounts of their devastation. The Papal ambassador to the Mongols wrote of going through the Russian plains which had once been densely populated and seeing no population except for the bleached bones of the dead.

.

The Khan died suddenly. His successors continued to work by bursting into Russia, the Middle East, Syria, Iraq and Palestine. They even moved into Europe and were threatening the city of Venice. Europe was stunned by them. Who were they? Where did they come from? In Russia the success of the Mongols was seen as God’s punishment for the sins of his people.

.

Western Christians were uncertain how to respond to the Mongols. They were over running Muslim territory. Should they make an alliance with them or were they a greater threat than the Muslims themselves? The Crusading armies were also confused. The Pope tried to reason with the great Khan but he could not understand his argument. As far as the Khan was concerned, the Great God gave him victory and would continue to do so. It was best for the Pope and the Western Christians to submit to him and pay tribute.

.

The Mongol armies reached Hungry and the Adriatic in 1242. There was nothing to interfere with their total conquest of Europe. In 8th century Europe might have become Muslim. In the 13th Europe might have become Mongol. But the death of the Great Khan brought about the withdrawal of the Mongol armies to Central Asia so they could be present for the election of the next Great Khan. As things turned out, there was no second opportunity to invade. Europe was saved. But Russian remained under Mongol rule.

.

They did not greatly interfere with the Russians. The Mongols protected the Russian church as worshippers of the God of heaven. They allowed bishops to travel freely as well. So church and nation in Russia recovered from great wounds of first invasion. Under Mongol rule the center of the church became Moscow. In 1380 the Prince of Moscow inflicted the first significant defeat on a Muslim army. This was the sign of future of Mongol rule as well.

.

The Mongols gave the Eastern Roman Empire and the Eastern Church a respite from Muslim pressure on Constantinople. But in Central Asia the church suffered terribly. This was the sphere of the old Nestorian church. Here Christianity had become at home among the nomadic peoples of Asia (the Uigers and the Turkic people’s for example). This church had brought the gospel to China in 7th century. The great but terrible Mongol ruler, Tamarlane, destroyed the greater part of this church before his death in 1405. Meanwhile, other Turkic people were making their way Westward from central Asia. The Ottoman Turks will displace the Arabs as Islamic leaders. They will carry on a revival of Islamic endeavors toward Constantinople after the Mongol threat was removed. They brought about fall of Constantinople in 1453. With this the Eastern Roman Empire comes to an end. Constantine’s second rule moves into eclipse. The Hagia Sophia, wrecked by the Crusaders 250 years earlier, had been repaired. But now it became a Mosque. This was the end of the dominating Christian power in the east.

.

And so, we have seen the serial nature of the Christian faith. In the West a center of the Christian faith had fallen only to rise again among the Barbarians. In the East the once vibrant center has fallen but a third Rome will rise to take its place. The third Rome is Holy Russia with Moscow as its capital.